Allahabad High Court orders Video Recording of demolition of buildings on encroached land

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed petitions challenging the demolition of buildings on encroached lands and also ordered video recording of the entire demolition process..The buildings are being demolished by the Uttar Pradesh Bridge Corporation for the construction of a Railway over-bridge keeping in view the Ardha Kumbh Mela 2019..The order was passed by a Bench comprising of Justices Tarun Agarwala and Ajay Bhanot. .Advocate Murlidhar Misra appeared for the petitioners. Advocate Pranjal Mehrotra appeared for the Bridge Corporation. Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, AP Paul represented the Allahabad Development Authority..The District Administration had sanctioned a certain area for the construction of the bridge. Following official survey, it was found that the State land bordering the sanctioned area was encroached by 41 dwellers. Notices were, therefore, issued to the encroachers. The encroachers were directed to remove the encroachment, failing which the State would demolish their structures at their own expenses..Four petitioners had approached the court, contending that they had not made any encroachment and that no notice was served upon them. They also contended that the survey was not done properly..By order of the court, the District Magistrate was made to conduct a physical survey in the presence of the petitioners. However, it was submitted that only two of the petitioners were present when this survey was conducted. Further, it was also submitted that the petitioners had left the spot and did not participate in the conduct of the survey..It was observed by the Court that the report of the District Magistrate indicated that the objections of the petitioners and others were baseless and without any supporting evidence..The Court also found that the contention of the petitioners that Sections 3 of the UP Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 read with Rule 7 of the Rules had to be applied in measuring the land, were patently erroneous. This was because the designated area was not declared a controlled area as per the requirements of the cited provisions..“Nothing has been indicated that the road has been declared a controlled area under the notification issued under Section 3 of the said Act nor Rule 7 of the Rules would be applicable. Rule 7 of the Rules is applicable only when an application is made by a person for construction on a road side land for which purpose, permission is required and the necessary guidelines have been given under Rule 7 of the Rules. In the absence of declaration of a controlled area, the Act is not applicable.”.It was also submitted that only a portion of the encroachment made by the encroachers would be demolished and not the entire encroachment..In these circumstances, the court saw it fit to dismiss the petitions, noting that,.“The fact [is], that when the Court directed to make a fresh survey, the petitioners left the premises and did not participate. They also did not file any objection personally before this Court and only chose to file an objection through a pairokar, who apparently is a student and had no connection with the issue of the land.”.However, the court also directed,.“… to the District Administration that in the event, an exercise of demolition is being done, the same shall be recorded through a video for future evidence.”.Read order below.. Click here to download the Bar & Bench Android App